'anabaptist' Attitude Toward Adoption

[Ken]

Look to the parents. In most cases it is problematic child rearing and not genetics. Whether the child is adopted or not.

Adopted children are far more likely to have social problems than natural children, all else being equal.

It is possible that adopted parents are unusually bad parents, but it seems unlikely.

When you see bad behavior in children it is usually (not always but usually) they result of the environment in which they were raised. In the case of adoptions where the child is not a newborn infant then the environment in which they are raised is the result of two sets of parents (or parent) and it may be a tremendous challenge for the adoptive parents to overcome the bad environmental influences (or trauma) that the child experienced. That trauma might be physical abuse, mental abuse, or even chemical abuse (exposure to drugs). But is all part of the environment in which the child was raised.

As a parent and a Christian I should think that you believe you have great influence on the outcome of your children and that how they turn out isn't simply predetermined by genetics.

Every child is indeed different. But through instruction, nurture, love, and patience we can indeed move the needle a long ways in either direction. Although some children take more time and effort than others.

[Josh]

Josh, it seems like you and I had this discussion a couple years ago on here somewhere, but I'll just re-iterate for the sake of this discussion that, as I am an "adopted-into-Anabaptism kid" myself, the claim of "far more likely" strikes me not only as an unfair (and mildly offensive) generalization that will skew any attempt at an objective consideration of the question, but also, it certainly doesn't match my general experience as an adopted child in any way, nor that of several of my similarly-adopted peers (in both Anabaptist and non-Anabaptist settings), nor that of various families we interact with who have adopted children "into" Anabaptist world.

And I say what I say as a foster and adoptive parent and one who plans to repeat the process at some point, and who was raised in a home with foster & adoptive children (and without, I might add, negative outcomes). The hard truth that everyone needs to face is that adoptions simply have a lot more negative social outcomes than natural-born children, all else being equal. I don't see how it helps to be in denial of that fact.

Having said that, where I HAVE seen social challenges on the part of adoptees, and there have been some, I submit to you that they were usually resultant (or strongly influenced) from:
A. the age at adoption

This is a common canard but the social problems happen even with newborn adoptions (which are also the most prized).

B. pre-adoptive circumstances/trauma (possibly including pre-natal circumstances such as you mentioned in the comment before this one), or

Yes. Virtually every adoption has some kind of trauma, though. The most obvious being that the birth parents decided not to keep the child.

C. the positive or negative affirmation of their identity by their adoptive family/peers as an equal child in the community.

I think this is far less significant, despite this being the bogeyman a lot gets blamed on. There is a great deal of research on adoption outcomes, and the findings hold rather steady (the one factor that makes an adoption much less likely to have negative outcomes is a kinship adoption, i.e., someone adopts a cousin, niece, etc. or even a more distant relative) - and interestingly this holds even when other very negative factors are present.

Btw, and this is a question for anybody, is there a thread on here somewhere RE cross-ethnic adoptions among Anabaptists and the potential challenges in that? That would be an interesting vein to pursue as well.

At the risk of sounding like I have a one-track mind, the negative social outcomes of adoption hold sway even with an ethnic "match" between the adoptive family and the adopted child. (Another bogeyman to blame problematic outcomes on is claiming the community didn't accept a cross-ethnic match. From what I can tell, whilst this may happen and feel hurtful, this isn't why negative outcomes happen.)

It's possible to be frank and open that these problems happen and still engage in lots of fostering and adoptive activity. What doesn't help is the attitude I see from some corners to bury one's head in the sand.

[Josh]

When you see bad behavior in children it is usually (not always but usually) they result of the environment in which they were raised.

This is a common belief but not supported by evidence. The most reliable predictor of for example alcoholism is if one's birth parents were alcoholics.

As a parent and a Christian I should think that you believe you have great influence on the outcome of your children and that how they turn out isn't simply predetermined by genetics.

As someone who "believes in science", I do believe the social scientists who study these things who find that a large amount of behaviour (perhaps 55%) is essentially deterministic and hereditary. That means that disruptions to families make it harder to adjust to these behaviours that are ingrained into a person at birth, or even before birth.

Every child is indeed different. But through instruction, nurture, love, and patience we can indeed move the needle a long ways in either direction. Although some children take more time and effort than others.

Given how vastly different the outcomes of natural born children and adopted children are, it seems unlikely that adopted parents are actually that bad at parenting.

[Heirbyadoption]

My loving (and candid) wife says I shouldn't bother responding to your last bit, but goodness me... Persisting in denial, promoting a canard, suffering trauma, blaming less significant bogeymen, AND burying the head in the sand, all in one fell swoop! For the rest of MN who has the good sense to be silent and only thought of as fools (as opposed to the merry few like you and I who apparently can't help ourselves ), I'll stand on my previous comments anyway.

And Thomas Sowell probably said it better than I in his book The Vision of the Anointed: “One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.”

[Neto]

When you see bad behavior in children it is usually (not always but usually) they result of the environment in which they were raised. In the case of adoptions where the child is not a newborn infant then the environment in which they are raised is the result of two sets of parents (or parent) and it may be a tremendous challenge for the adoptive parents to overcome the bad environmental influences (or trauma) that the child experienced. That trauma might be physical abuse, mental abuse, or even chemical abuse (exposure to drugs). But is all part of the environment in which the child was raised.
....

In the cases to which I referred, the influence (and damage) almost certainly occurred before birth, due to the birth mother's drug use.

Other possible causes during pregnancy might include other unhealthy habits (smoking, alcohol), or simply poor nutrition and health care.

[Josh]

My loving (and candid) wife says I shouldn't bother responding to your last bit, but goodness me... Persisting in denial, promoting a canard, suffering trauma, blaming less significant bogeymen, AND burying the head in the sand, all in one fell swoop! For the rest of MN who has the good sense to be silent and only thought of as fools (as opposed to the merry few like you and I who apparently can't help ourselves ), I'll stand on my previous comments anyway.

And Thomas Sowell probably said it better than I in his book The Vision of the Anointed: “One of the first things taught in introductory statistics textbooks is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten.”

Heir, I think you're interpreting this as some kind of character assault on adopted people, which it is not. As I have said earlier, I fully support fostering and adopting and I think more of it should be done (particularly fostering, and particularly adoption in situations besides infertile couples spending $$$ to get a newborn).

But if we want to promote a culture of foster and adoption, then we need to speak plainly and realistically about some of the difficulties that go along with it. Pretending they don't happen doesn't fix anything. Nor does repeating canards like "correlation doesn't imply causation" (what does that have to do with anything?).

It should be obvious that not all adopted kids have problems. And it goes without saying that some natural-born children have serious problems. That doesn't negate the fact that, on net, adoption situations have more problems than natural-born situations.

With that out of the way... perhaps you could set your emotions aside and instead talk about the realities, including, yes, that problems will have to be dealt with, and it would also be wise for prospective adoptive parents (particularly those of the infertile-couple-spending-$50,000-to-adopt variety) to be aware of what they may be getting into?

[Heirbyadoption]

With that out of the way... perhaps you could set your emotions aside and instead talk about the realities, including, yes, that problems will have to be dealt with, and it would also be wise for prospective adoptive parents (particularly those of the infertile-couple-spending-$50,000-to-adopt variety) to be aware of what they may be getting into?

You appear to be perceiving more emotion into my response than I was experiencing, just as apparently I was perceiving the general labels/implications you were handing out being contextually applicable towards us "adopted-in" types, or at least those of us who occasionally question the absoluteness of your claims... (Shrug emoji) If it makes you feel any better, I wasn't perceiving any (deliberate) character assault, per se, but rather a presentation (again) on aspects of adoption that in my experiences (being personally adopted, fostering, interacting with lots of adopted kids Anabaptist & otherwise / international &otherwise, foster and adoption agencies, etc) aren't nearly as black and white as you suggest. Nobody has said they don't/can't happen, I'm just suggesting that frankly, things are often far more nuanced or needing qualified than generalizations often suggest (ergo the Sowell quote), but perhaps that's too much bunny trailing at this point... As one of the older gentleman on here so aptly puts, YMMV.

Now with that out of the way ( ) and on a connected note, it would be interesting to see some studies on those "infertile-couples-spending-$50K-to-adopt" you mentioned, and what (if any) negative impact their own traumas (to use your term) of things like infertility, cultural pressure, high costs, etc. might have upon the adopted child, more than the child's suggested trauma of being given away... Do you (or anybody else reading here) have any thoughts or research thereupon? Or personal experiences specific to that?

[JayP]

I am not sure casually asking folks “generally” about adoption is productive. We have both birth and adoptive children. For us, it has been very good for everyone. In relating to other folks that have adopted I think there are a few valuable lessons.

1. Adoption tends to be the defining characteristic when it should not be. What I mean by that is if a birth child becomes difficult, say they have a drug problem. If it is a birth child the PROBLEM becomes the focal point. But if they are adopted the focus is first on the adoption characteristic rather than the problem. The same with a physical issue. One of our adopted children had a physical issue (I am being vague on purpose) that fortunately was able to be addressed. The point is children that are NOT adopted have all sorts of possible issues too…. But their birth characteristic is never brought into it.

2. Adoptions are different. If you have birth children you should try to follow age/birth order. Adopting say. 12 year old at age 12 between your birth children of 15 and 8 throws a monkey wrench into a natural process.

3. Adopting an infant is very different than a child who has been in foster care.

[Josh]

1. Adoption tends to be the defining characteristic when it should not be. What I mean by that is if a birth child becomes difficult, say they have a drug problem. If it is a birth child the PROBLEM becomes the focal point. But if they are adopted the focus is first on the adoption characteristic rather than the problem. The same with a physical issue. One of our adopted children had a physical issue (I am being vague on purpose) that fortunately was able to be addressed. The point is children that are NOT adopted have all sorts of possible issues too…. But their birth characteristic is never brought into it.

But the facts are clear: children who are adopted have far more problems than children who are not. (Yes, I know that some adopted children don't have problems, and some natural-born children do have problems.)

I don't think (at least in our circles) that the adoption characteristic is the main focus. Oftentimes, people try very hard to try to pretend the adoption characteristic isn't even there. However, after a family churns out every single adopted child having a major social (and often legal) problem, and perhaps they have a natural born child or two that doesn't, the difference becomes painfully obvious.

[barnhart]

Thanks for sharing your perspective JayP. Good words.